Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Staff Sgt. Bales allegedly murdered 17 Afghan civilians, so shouldn't he be tried in Afghanistan by an Afghan court? The alleged crime was committed in Afghanistan against Afghanis, so why was the prime suspect whisked away to the U.S. to be tried presumably in an American military court?
Staff Sgt. Bales allegedly murdered 17 Afghan civilians, so shouldn't he be tried in Afghanistan by an Afghan court? The alleged crime was committed in Afghanistan against Afghanis, so why was the prime suspect whisked away to the U.S. to be tried presumably in an American military court?
Staff Sgt. Bales allegedly murdered 17 Afghan civilians, so shouldn't he be tried in Afghanistan by an Afghan court? The alleged crime was committed in Afghanistan against Afghanis, so why was the prime suspect whisked away to the U.S. to be tried presumably in an American military court?
No, he should NOT be tried by an Afghan court.
Staff Sgt. Bales allegedly murdered 17 Afghan civilians, so shouldn't he be tried in Afghanistan by an Afghan court? The alleged crime was committed in Afghanistan against Afghanis, so why was the prime suspect whisked away to the U.S. to be tried presumably in an American military court?
No, he should NOT be tried by an Afghan court.
Why not?
Staff Sgt. Bales allegedly murdered 17 Afghan civilians, so shouldn't he be tried in Afghanistan by an Afghan court? The alleged crime was committed in Afghanistan against Afghanis, so why was the prime suspect whisked away to the U.S. to be tried presumably in an American military court?
Normally that would be true if there was an absence of a Status of Forces Agreement. However, sense we do have a SOFA he is rightly tried under the UCMJ. You disagree with this?
Staff Sgt. Bales allegedly murdered 17 Afghan civilians, so shouldn't he be tried in Afghanistan by an Afghan court? The alleged crime was committed in Afghanistan against Afghanis, so why was the prime suspect whisked away to the U.S. to be tried presumably in an American military court?
Staff Sgt. Bales allegedly murdered 17 Afghan civilians, so shouldn't he be tried in Afghanistan by an Afghan court? The alleged crime was committed in Afghanistan against Afghanis, so why was the prime suspect whisked away to the U.S. to be tried presumably in an American military court?
Normally that would be true if there was an absence of a Status of Forces Agreement. However, sense we do have a SOFA he is rightly tried under the UCMJ. You disagree with this?
Yes. We are not at war with Afghanistan, and this crime was committed in Afghanistan against Afghani civilians. I see no reason why our troops should be immune from Afghan law while they're in Afghanistan.
The quote in your signature was said by John Adams during a trial in Mass. of British soldiers accused of firing on civilians. Note that the soldiers were not whisked away to Great Britain to face trial for their alleged crime.
This sends a powerful message to the Afghans that we do not view them as a sovern nation. But as conquered servants of the USA. Wh do not deserve the same rights as their conquerors get.
Staff Sgt. Bales allegedly murdered 17 Afghan civilians, so shouldn't he be tried in Afghanistan by an Afghan court? The alleged crime was committed in Afghanistan against Afghanis, so why was the prime suspect whisked away to the U.S. to be tried presumably in an American military court?
Normally that would be true if there was an absence of a Status of Forces Agreement. However, sense we do have a SOFA he is rightly tried under the UCMJ. You disagree with this?
Yes. We are not at war with Afghanistan, and this crime was committed in Afghanistan against Afghani civilians. I see no reason why our troops should be immune from Afghan law while they're in Afghanistan.
The quote in your signature was said by John Adams during a trial in Mass. of British soldiers accused of firing on civilians. Note that the soldiers were not whisked away to Great Britain to face trial for their alleged crime.
A Status of Forces Agreement is an legal agreement between two countries. We have one for every base that we have overseas. If Afghanistan did not agree to the SOFA we would not be operating in Afghanistan. We pulled out of Iraq because Iraq did not want to renew the SOFA. The British were tried by colonists because the colonies were British soil with British common law, and therefore, no special consideration was needed. Just as when a U.S. soldier commits a crime within the United States he is tried in civilian court and not immune to double jeapordy.
Your avatar is of Frederic Bastiat, a champion of natural law and the liberty of the individual. Certainly you believe that our troops should not be tried under a system in which the laws of nature are not the focal point of Afghan law. Certainly you would respect the freedom of a country to contract an agreement with another in keeping with its Constitution? Certainly you would not want us to be in a foreign country without an SOFA agreement? Certainly you would want to honor the legal agreement between our countries? Certainly we have the right to try him under the UCMJ and not under a system of religious bigotry & intolerance. I wouldn’t wish that upon the most obviously guilty serial killer. Why? Because what implications would it have on my treatment in the court of law?
Staff Sgt. Bales allegedly murdered 17 Afghan civilians, so shouldn't he be tried in Afghanistan by an Afghan court? The alleged crime was committed in Afghanistan against Afghanis, so why was the prime suspect whisked away to the U.S. to be tried presumably in an American military court?
Unless our entire nation building effort there was a sham you are correct.
He committed a crime outside of his military orders and thus should be tried by the local authorities.
This sends a powerful message to the Afghans that we do not view them as a sovern nation. But as conquered servants of the USA. Wh do not deserve the same rights as their conquerors get.
This sends a powerful message to the Afghans that we do not view them as a sovern nation. But as conquered servants of the USA. Wh do not deserve the same rights as their conquerors get.
Afganistan agreed with the Status of Forces Agreement. Why should we be the ones to violate it by trying our troops outside of the agreement? We have a SOFA for a reason. If you dont like the fact that we have a SOFA then fine. But that doesent change the fact that we have the legal right to try our own under the UCMJ as agreed upon by both governments. It has nothing to do with how we view the Afghan people. We have a SOFA for every country where our military exists.
Normally that would be true if there was an absence of a Status of Forces Agreement. However, sense we do have a SOFA he is rightly tried under the UCMJ. You disagree with this?
Yes. We are not at war with Afghanistan, and this crime was committed in Afghanistan against Afghani civilians. I see no reason why our troops should be immune from Afghan law while they're in Afghanistan.
The quote in your signature was said by John Adams during a trial in Mass. of British soldiers accused of firing on civilians. Note that the soldiers were not whisked away to Great Britain to face trial for their alleged crime.
A Status of Forces Agreement is an legal agreement between two countries. We have one for every base that we have overseas. If Afghanistan did not agree to the SOFA we would not be operating in Afghanistan. We pulled out of Iraq because Iraq did not want to renew the SOFA. The British were tried by colonists because the colonies were British soil with British common law, and therefore, no special consideration was needed. Just as when a U.S. soldier commits a crime within the United States he is tried in civilian court and not immune to double jeapordy.
Your avatar is of Frederic Bastiat, a champion of natural law and the liberty of the individual. Certainly you believe that our troops should not be tried under a system in which the laws of nature are not the focal point of Afghan law. Certainly you would respect the freedom of a country to contract an agreement with another in keeping with its Constitution? Certainly you would not want us to be in a foreign country without an SOFA agreement? Certainly you would want to honor the legal agreement between our countries? Certainly we have the right to try him under the UCMJ and not under a system of religious bigotry & intolerance. I wouldnt wish that upon the most obviously guilty serial killer. Why? Because what implications would it have on my treatment in the court of law?
We can't even get the Jihad Major to trial after three years and the left wants an American Soldier tried by a government that once harbored Bin Ladin. need to get the hell out of Afghanistan before the American left becomes totally unhinged.
We can't even get the Jihad Major to trial after three years and the left wants an American Soldier tried by a government that once harbored Bin Ladin. need to get the hell out of Afghanistan before the American left becomes totally unhinged.
I'm not sure anybody from the "left" has commented in this thread, though I can't say for sure how uscitizen would describe his own political beliefs in terms of right and left.
